Thank you and I am very happy to be invited here to this wonderful building and fascinating centre. I have some ideas to discuss with you on conflict.
My research of the last 25 years has being focusing on some specific areas, like Chechnya, Palestine, parts of India and so on, but the majority of my research is on the overview – not specific conflicts but conflict chains, what is going on in the world as a whole? If you have questions please feel free to ask them while I am talking, just interrupt me, raise your hand or if you disagree with me.
Academic life should consist 50 percent tough discussions challenging each other, so please feel free to do that. If you want to communicate with me later here is my e-mail, I normally reply for 24 hours if I am online, if I am out in a jungle place I will do so as soon as I am back to a telephone line.
One of the most difficult schemes in the world today is the state system is expanding. States as the dominant units on the international scene is something coming into existence in 1648: State system. It was after thirty years of very chaotic situation of Europe that the number of actors on the European scene said “let’s do it differently in the future, let’s set up a system to regulate our relationships and have rules”. Today, it has been developing into international law and a number of conventions. But that was a result of very chaotic period in Europe. And Europe was very eager to have the state system coming into existence. Europe and European states have been exporting worldwide this system through occupations of territories and conquering of nations. It was seen as the possibility to reduce violence, but we do not see very much that consequence of it. It’s not less wars the last 400 years than it was earlier, a little different types of wars, but the system has number of other consequences, and the process of creating the state system is part of the historical background for many of the most violent conflicts going on in the world today. And Europe itself is in the process of going away from the state system. European States are, through the European Union, creating something different than a number of small states, they are gathering power in Brussels. These days we are discussing and improving the European Union as a new super state. And the power of the national assemblies and parliaments around Europe is less than ever. So why the rest of the world is in expanding and creating new states while Europe is coming to the other direction. I will come back to that a little later. And just to give you one example, I’m not very proud to be European, and part of that it is European history. The main way for European states to have conflicts is that our politicians giving orders and the army carrying them out. If we look at one continent, Africa, this was what it looked like before the Europeans started to conquer and rob Africa. And then the European states started to quarrel about how to divide this continent between them, and they had that famous conference in Berlin in 1884. It was 250 representatives, all from Europe, not a single African were there. All were males, not single women were there. Most of them were about 50 years old. And according to the records most of them were drunk. They spent three weeks and the result was more or less this map. This is not wise handling of conflicts. This map indicates why Africa is in serious problems today. It is not the only reason but one basic reason for the problem in Africa. If any of my students have got as a task to come with the solutions for this continent and presented to me this map, she or he would fail. This is not an acceptable way to handle conflicts. Sitting there in Europe without any from the local continent being part of the process and just dividing it by arbiting.
The most typical trend in international politics is number of states are growing, it is difficult to go back further than 1816 because not so many states were around, not a territory were not part of states, but you see there is more or less 50 to 60 states all the way up to the end of the Second World War. Suddenly the numbers of states in the world is expanding enormously. And there is no reason to believe that expansion has ended here. I guess that in a couple years we will see at least in Kosovo or Kosova, depending on who you are, will be a member of the United Nations and accepted as a full member of the international state system. The last country accepted was East Timor when Indonesia started to fall apart. And we have seen in the last couple years South Ossetia being recognized as independent state in Moscow, Abkhazia is the same. There are number of states lining up for being states. If we look on the question how many states could be expected in the future this is very difficult question to take on, but we can look at some of the indicator that we have. Without being too scientific, the entities demanding their own states can be called nations in this context, if you want to do it more scientifically you need to have a better definition of it. By nation, I mean a group of people with something in common: that could be language, religion, culture, ethnicity or a political project, and they have some territorial claims. That is would you see around the world where these nations are organizing themselves demanding autonomy, independence, sovereignty or different kinds. Trying to count them there are at least 2000 of them in the world today with some territorial claims. I am not saying that we expect 2000 states in the future, what I’m saying is that the potential of new states is very very high. And there is tough processes going on in many states today or small parts of the states, nations want to have more independency or autonomy. Others have been counting 8000. And this is something we will face in the years to come. This is a problematic for many reasons. If you start by looking at the actors influencing the creation of new states, there aren’t very many of them. The United Nations and the United Nations Security Council is the final judge. If you want to be accepted you need to have support of these bodies and that is problematic. The United Nations Security Council is not a very democratic body; it is not very good at being representative of the people of the world. I remember I was giving a lecture in Jakarta not too long ago, and a student said, “Why should the Security Council with 5 permanent members have that much power? 80% of them are Christian states.” I said what, well, defined permanent members, those with the veto power, is UK, France, US, Russia and then China. Why can’t 1.5 billion Muslims have a permanent seat in the Security Council? That was the question. This is very good question. It is not easy to argue against a permanent seat for Indonesia or Pakistan, India, Brazil, South Africa. There are numbers of states that are much more important than, for example, this small island out in the North Sea calling itself as Great Britain. Why they should be they be there? They’re playing soccer quite well, but they are not a superpower anymore. We could historically explain why the Security Council is constructed as it is. But today they have serious problems if they try to represent the people of the world. Then you have other states supporting the creation of new states, neighbouring states: Russia are eager to help South Ossetia and Abkhazia to be independent, they are very important player in that game. I remember travelling in South Ossetia two years ago and I had a meeting with the Russian ambassador and he offered me Russian passport. I don’t want the Russian passport, but there were active campaigns from Russian side to recruit more citizens in South Ossetia. And when the war started not too long ago, they could correctly claim that these people are Russian citizens. There was recently in Ukraine the tendencies of the same process there. Russia is giving away passports to get new citizens, and then they could claim that we need to support our people if they are threatened. This is one actor; I could give many more examples of course. Then you have international civil society actors. If you look on mainstream media, you will find so many actors supporting Palestinians having their own state. They are relative important actors and they are doing hard work for Palestinians to have their own state relatively soon. Some of them are strong. The internal civil society actors are typical movements inside the state who want to struggle for their own independence external ones are the international solidarity movements. You could add many more actors; I do not want to spend time on it, I just want to indicate. My next question is to what degree are these actors responsible for the results? When Kosovo in the end will be a state member of United Nations? Where are the responsibilities for that creation? Is that the NATO bombing in ‘99, or is it the United Nations Security Council will accept Kosovo as an independent state, or is it all the exiled people who are fighting for an independent Kosovo, a member of NATO, part of it very soon, are they responsible for it? If you are supporting a group, let’s say you support the people in Western Sahara for independence from Morocco, and they gained success in the end, they get independence, are you responsible for that? Coming back to that question when we look on the consequences of these new states quite soon. Could they say something in general about the benefits and the problems of new states being born? Is it a good thing? Should we celebrate an independent Palestine? Should we celebrate Kosovo? Should we celebrate East Timor? Should we celebrate Western Sahara? Should we celebrate Kurdistan? These are sensitive questions.
First of all, since all territory is already occupied, every new state being born will be a division of an existing state. You can’t create states today without dividing old ones. And that is very painful process. That is not easy. This division is going on and has done so since ‘45, in an escalating pace. There are about 20 states with only one nation inside themselves, like Iceland, another small state up in the North Atlantic, 300,000 people living there. Twenty states have only one nation, the one hundred and eighty other states in the world have more than one nation inside themselves. So this process is very difficult, complex and sensitive. What you will get is more state voices on the international scene. You get more votes in the UN General Assembly. That is an impact which could be important if they change the UN Constitution. When the UN was established in ‘45, they had 51 members; today they have 192. And of course when we see the proposal for a solution against Israel on what they did in Gaza, the majority of these 192 states are saying “not good, this is war crimes,” but the few powerful ones, the permanent members of Security Council say “don’t bother about it, let’s move on”. So if you change power from the Security Council to the General Assembly and let the UN be more democratic, these voices are very important. I am quite a good friend of the UN, I like the idea; it is not functioning well today, but I think we need to keep it and try to improve it. And any improvements in UN must be in a more democratic way, having better representativeness in the important bodies inside the UN system.
All new states, since they are division of old ones, will be smaller when it comes to population. Some of them are very small; I will give you some examples in a few minutes. And they are also small when it comes to territory of course. Is this a good development? Do we like the small ones, better than big ones? When I was eighteen I remember reading a book called “Small Is Beautiful” by Schumacher. I’m not quite sure it could count for the states; he meant something else. But, first of all, the question must be answered from the perspective of the means used in the struggle for independence. What means are they using? That is very important question if you want to answer if it is a good development or bad development. How are they doing it? If it is by massacres, war crimes, terrorism, I would be doubtful about that process. But it is also a question about the means used by those opposing the independence. I was in Chechnya in 1996, I met with Dudayev five days before he was killed on Easter in April 1996, and by that time Russians had bombed 95 percent of all the buildings in the whole country. Not only in Grozny and the main cities, but even the countryside – 95% of every building was bombed. And that means used to try to stop the movement for independence was not very nice. I have pictures from that trip, but I don’t want to show you because you won’t be able to sleep tonight. So the means used by those opposing independence is also an important question when you want to answer it. And then it depends on the politics are they been established as independent states. Of course it does. What sort of state are they going to be created here, that is very important question for me, when I judge if it’s a good or a bad development having more states. We’ve see cases on new states being born as extreme dictatorships, we’ve seen new states being born as multiparty democracies and everything between. That, for me, is a very important question. I had, back in the 80s and the early 90s, meetings of Yaser Arafat. And I could speak nicely about him for a long time. But to be honest, he was better at handling Kalashnikovs than human rights. And that is a problem. The same thing when I have been to Hamas and Gaza today; they have good arguments, they won the elections in 96, but the society they are trying to create, at least in Gaza, it is not my favourite.
We could divide the means of division into four categories. Civil war. All these new states being born from ‘45 on, fifty of them were African states who earlier belonged to European states. They become independent in the 50s and 60s. The main means used for creating 52 African states were civil wars. Some of them very brutal, some of them relatively peaceful, but that is one way of creating independence and creating new states. Negotiations. Czechoslovakia. If you go to library you can find hundreds of books on how they divided Yugoslavia; you will probably not find any books on how they divided Czechoslovakia because it was so peaceful. My colleagues around the world, called in sense peace researchers, they only focusing on the most bloody conflicts, the wars, and they write hundreds of books on them. The academia is doing the same mistakes as the mainstream media; they only focus on most serious mistakes done in handling conflicts. Only the most terrible bloody ones are done research on. This is a fascinating story. And I knew people who were part of that process, negotiating the division of Czechoslovakia – it was not easy. They spent 18 months, a small commission was discussing a number of specific issues: How to divide the national bank and the money you have there; how to divide national airlines; how to divide the army. I met a guy who had been discussing for 6 months how to divide the prisoners in Czechoslovakia – would it be based on where they were born, where the crime was committed, where the prisons are. It is not easy but in the end they could shake hands and divide the country after negotiations. If you want to study a good case on creating new states look at this one. How was that possible? I don’t say it could be copied, but you could learn from it, you could be inspired from it. Number three: non-armed revolutions. For example the Baltic States, seeing the revolution in Estonia when they separated from the Soviet Union in 1991. Fascinating stories. I will come back to some of the roman revolutions a little later and maybe talk a little more about it in my lecture tomorrow, but here you have some interesting cases where massive mobilization of ordinary citizens was able to stand up against the military forces and get support internationally and domestically and gained independence. This is good states to study if you want to see a different way of doing it. And the last way is United Nations Resolutions, UN plans like the creation of Israel in ‘48 or Namibia. Where the UN has taken the charge and tried to create new states. In my view, Namibia was a much more successful case than Israel, but that is whole different discussion. These are the 4 main means of division. And this is like a menu. If you are one of those who want to have more independence, look through these options, discuss them.
Let’s take one of these interesting debates, following new questions, when you have people with demands for autonomy and/or sovereignty, then the key question is what decides who belongs to the new state. What are the criteria to belong to the new states? We have been citizens of one state earlier, and now you divide. Where should we live, what is your new entity? Is it your passport? I mentioned the Russian strategy in Ukrainian these days. Ethnicity, whatever that is, language, religion, what should it be? How do you decide who should belong to the new state. And not only what, but who decides? Is it the majority, UN General Assembly, UN Security Council, or your big neighbours? Who should decide where you should stay? When India was independent in ‘47, and the majority of Muslims wanted to have their own state, Pakistan, East and West Pakistan, it was election mainly, not a very successful division, massacres followed. From a democratic point of view, it could be said let’s go for a majority, let’s have referendum, like UN told in Morocco, they want a referendum in Western Sahara – do they want independence or not? And Morocco has been delaying that process for years and at the same time moving in Moroccans to Western Sahara. So very soon there are a majority of Moroccans that moved in recently, and then they can accept having a referendum and say “Hey, do you want to stay with us?” Just like the Chinese government is doing in Tibet. They are moving Chinese citizens to Tibet and then they have the majority and quite sure they will accept the referendum and the other results of it. So it is not it easy to use the majority either. When are you sure you have the majority, in what state of the process?
My main serious problem is the consequence of many new small states that is unseen: very soon a future where everyone one live by their own. I see possibilities for ethnically cleansed small units. Kosovo is almost completely cleansed from Serbs today, less than 5% Serbs living in Kosovo as a consequence of the process of independence. There are very few Indonesians still living in East Timor. And I don’t want to see a world with ethnically cleansed small units. I don’t want a Palestine only for Palestinians. I have meetings with el-Fatah or Hamas, I say, “Could you imagine a future with Israeli citizens living in this territory?” “Never! Just see what have they done to us in the last 50 years. They are not welcome here.” This is a consequence of the process of independence and the process to prevent independence, but these massacres and atrocities make it extremely difficult to have a multicultural unit in the future. The list is long, same process in Western Sahara. If they get independence, I can’t imagine Moroccans are happy to live there or welcomed to live there in the future. Kosovo, Quebec, Kurdistan, Chechnya, South Ossetia, Lebanon, Tibet, the list is extremely long. I was in Easter Island in the year 2000, belonging to Chile, and there are 3201 persons living there today, 3201, and they want independence. They want a state and a seat in the UN General Assembly. Very very small – it is like a small quarter of this city, ok, 3000 people. But will people from Chile be welcome to stay there in the future? I don’t know. So this is for me a problem I want to raise with those people who are struggling for independence today, what sort of state could you expect to see in the future? For me, it looks like small states have a tendency to do less harm than large ones. If we look on the history, it is empires who has done most harm. On the top you have the US Empire, and then you have the Roman Empire, and then you go down and you see different empires doing a lot of harm to the small states around. Small ones is not that dangerous because of the size. Small states have more options for direct democracy. The distance from the top level to the bottom level is quite short. I was born in Norway, population of 4.5 million people. I know half of the government personally because we’re such a small unit, and that is an advantage, from a different point of view. Small states are less frightening to the neighbours, the Faroe Islands in the North Atlantic belong to Denmark, and they are these days negotiating independence. 35000 peoples, if they get it, they would not be a threat to anyone, you could hardly find it if you go out on the sea and try to look at it – it’s a very small island. So there are some positive things, some positive options in new small states. And there are exemptions to these rules. Some small states are behaving very, very, very badly, you see some of them in the Middle East. My dilemma is it’s relatively easy to support each single struggle for independence, autonomy and/or sovereign state. When I am working in the Basque country, I fully understand that Basques want to have more power to run their own country, not that down in Madrid. I fully understand Palestinians, who does not want to be under occupation and run by Tel Aviv. But it is the consequence on the overall picture is worrying what to do that. Global Bantustan versus independence, these are two different value systems, and this is a dilemma for me. If I was sure that the new states will be good states, tolerant states, liberal states, open minded governments, I would celebrate. But I see so many tendencies today on the opposite directions. Nationalists are the worse sort, kicking out all other ethnicities, ethnic groups. Be pure, only for us, that is serious problem for me, and of course the entrance of great or superpowers with their own agendas are complicating this picture. These are very complex processes, and there are no easy solutions to them, it is only in the mainstream media it looks easy. I am also for 5 years running a program, a master program, in Palestine- Israel: we have one-third students from Israel, one-third students from Palestine, one-third students from Europe – a two-year master program. In the first week I divided my students into small groups, some Palestinians, some Israelis and some Europeans in each group and gave them a task. List up actors in the Middle East, who are the actors who are influencing the outcome of this conflict. When they come back to me after 40 minutes, none of them listed less than 40 actors, in the mainstream media you can find two actors: Israel and Palestine, or maybe you can identify different partners in this, maybe you can identify Hamas versus Fatah, or the PLO, but for those living there, they understand it is so much more complex – 40 different actors is the minimum they come back with. And that complexity must be understood if you want to act in these processes. My countrymen, the Norwegians, in the Oslo process did not understand this complexity; they invited only two actors to secret meetings in Oslo. They invited the leadership of the Israeli labour party, that makes some sense because they were in government at that time, and they invited the leadership of Fatah for secret meetings. And these two groups could relatively easily, with a lot of Norwegian money and bribes, sign a document a few months later in front of the White House. The Oslo process was a success! But by inviting only two of many important actors, they excluded other actors. And conflicts is something that people involved have ownership relation to. It is my conflict, it is my future, don’t take it away from me, I want to be part of that process. For example, they excluded Orthodox Jews. And they were so upset about not being part of the process, not being able to decide on their own future, they did what they could to prevent the Oslo process. In the end, they shot their own prime minister. Rabin was shot because Orthodox Jews were excluded by the Norwegians. That is a heavy responsibility in the foreign ministry in Oslo for that association. The Norwegians excluded the settlers. They went into the mosque on Friday and shot down 29 praying Muslims to prevent the Oslo process from being successful. Norway excluded Hamas, and Hamas started as the first Muslim group in the world to use suicide bombers. Absolutely against the Koran course, but that was a result of being excluded from an important process about their own future. There is a heavy responsibility on Norway for that development. My point here is the powers around these processes must be able to understand the complexity of these conflicts and understand that there is a number of important actors. If you only involve two you will have serious problems. And the Norwegians have done the same in Sri Lanka, only inviting two, and that was disaster as well. I won’t go into details about that. So what are the possibilities, what could be seen as options, more positive use in the future? Well, as I said Europe is moving away from all these small states into one super state, not a superpower yet, but a super state. In Finland there is an island called Aland who has a very high level of autonomy, they are not member of the EU yet, because it has so high level of autonomy, they don’t want to be a member. And that is one way doing it: give people high level of autonomy, maybe they will accept that as the compromise or maybe as a good solution. Then I have discussions with people in Chechnya, several of them, including President Dudayev, said if you give us enough independence, we can go for that. You don’t need have a separate state. Federation. Belgium consists of different nationalities or nations; they have the federation system, which is one possibility. Or maybe Switzerland, in the confederation, is even more interesting. If you take up the money, the Swiss, the Franc bills, you see four different languages on them because there are so many nationalities. And they are giving them a lot of autonomy, the Cantons have a lot of autonomy, the referendums having every now and then a number of questions, and the government on the national level is less important in Switzerland. You could have shared governments at least for a time. ANC won the elections in 1994 in South Africa, ending the apartheid regime, and Nelson Mandela said let’s share the first government with the white minority. That was an extremely brave and wise decision. A number of South Africans hated him for that because they wanted to punish the white apartheid regime representatives, but he said let’s share. We want to stay here together for generations to come, and we don’t even know how to run the country, we’re amateurs, so let us share the government. That was very brave and wise.
In Lebanon you have different proportions of delegates based on different criteria, ethnicity; Africa has different representatives for tribes. But in Afghanistan I am arguing I don’t want an Afghanistan with 100% Taliban in government but I see it as just as stupid to have 0% Taliban in the government. Maybe 15% would be a good share. Invite them in, like they did with Fatah in Palestine some decades ago. Or maybe a union. I had a fascinating discussion this summer, with the leadership of Hamas and the West Bank. And I asked them, “How do you see the future of a two-state solutions?” “No way,” they said. “We won’t go for that. Let’s give us a one-state solution from the sea to the river, and implement democracy. We are in favour of that, we can respect the one-state solution but we have to have democracy” These voices is not very loud yet, but you will see them in the months or years to come. More and more of the hardcore Palestinians are in favour of democracy partly because they will be the majority. But, you see, it’s not obvious that you need to have a two-state solution, at least not in the long run. Part of my friends in Fatah would say, “Let’s have a two-state solution for 20 years and then maybe we could have a union. Maybe Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, would be a fascinating place on Earth.” There are possibilities to change in the future. We could start with one system and change later. Open up for all the possibilities in the years to come.
Well, in that case I want to change the topic a little. I have just a few ideas to talk about. I talked about the Baltic States that had non-armed revolutions. This is my main field of research for the moment. I am studying revolutionary movements around the world. Going back to the early 80s up to today, that means 30 years, it is difficult to identify single successful armed revolution. Wherever I am in the world, I ask my students “What do you think about the word, ‘revolutionary’?” Kalashnikov, macho guys, but that style of revolution has not been very successful in the last three decades. We have five ways of non-violent revolutions after the end of revolution in ‘47. These ways are not complete but all of them are under research. So for those who are into security studies, peace studies, conflict studies, whatever you call it, here are topics for your coming theses and research programmes. When Lech Walesa started the solidarity movement in Poland in 1980, supported by the Catholic Church and masses of people, nine years later he was elected President in the multiparty non-communist state. Without using guns, without using Kalashnikovs, without the use the violence. Organized massive mobilization of ordinary citizens. In Bolivia we saw that process in 1982. Remove the military dictatorship by massive demonstrations, boycotts, blockades, protests. Uruguay in 1984. Philippines in 1986 – remember that? Marcos tried to fix the elections and Corazon Aquino, the women called the canary bird, because of the strong yellow colour, she organized her people to do actions on the streets. Marcos introduced new laws that made it extremely illegal to have demonstrations, so they had Philippine-style demonstrations, namely jogging on the weekends with yellow t-shirts. That is not easy to make illegal, but suddenly the yellow t-shirts jogging in Manilla rose to 5000 to 50 000. From 50 000 to 120 000, from 120 000 to 200 000. And then half of the army said we got the point, we support Corazon Aquino. It was a very tense week, strong discussions going on, and then more people came to the streets and Marcos was gone. Western European and North American newspapers that covered that story were more focused on the number of shoes in Marcos’ wife’s wardrobe than on the fascinating people power revolution. She had a shoe fetish and had 13,000 pairs of shoes in her wardrobe – that was the main coverage in newspapers in Europe. And the revolution in 2001 was similar. The next wave, 1989, celebrated new states of Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, and Bulgaria, and the former Soviet Union falling apart, the free Baltic States, Moldova, and Georgia and so on. Most of these were quite peaceful ones and they were resulting in independent states without the use of guns, bombs, and terror. Wave number three is not very much known if you do not speak French: that is sub-Saharan francophone Africa, with Benin in 1989, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Senegal, Malawi, Mali, Senegal, Madagascar, and there are more cases. These are massive protests against the one-party system, calling for national assemblies. I have done some research in the case of Benin. They celebrated the 200-year anniversary of the French revolution in 1989, so there were discussions in all universities, on the streets, on the pavements, in the restaurants about the revolutions. And they were inspired by it. Then they saw the students in Tiananmen Square in China taking to the streets in protest of the communist regime in China. So the people of Benin, the trade unions, part of the church took the streets and forced the dictatorship to step down and introduce a multiparty system. And that started a wave. Wave number four is called the coloured revolutions. Serbia 2000 – NATO, with its bombing in 1999, did not manage to remove Milosevic. But the student movements and the coalition of parties called DOS in 2000 forced him to step down. Fascinating story, non-violent, well prepared, and that is spread on after 2000 to Georgia in 2003, Ukraine 2004, Kyrgyzstan 2004, and Lebanon 2005. These are the new way of doing it and the last wave recently started as a result of finance crisis. In Iceland, people stood outside the parliament for 8 weeks until the government stepped down in January this year and went on to Latvia, Hungary and the Czech Republic. We could see more states because of a corrupt and badly run government, people are not accepting bankruptcy of the state and they are forcing people in the government to step down. These are revolutions in a modern sense, and they are successful. My complete list has almost 40 examples in the last three decades, and in the same period you don’t have cases of armed revolutions being successful. If you want to study how to remove a regime, to force top leadership to step down, look at these ones. The main idea behind these revolutions is an understanding of power. Power is like the old Greek temple. It is based on different pillars in the society. People are paying taxes, people are working, the military doing their job, police doing their job, people are obedient, following orders, and the bureaucracy is functioning. What Gandhi started, was later developed in Poland and these other movements. Gandhi stopped paying salt taxes against the British Empire – the famous salt march. In Poland they had massive strikes, no one was working. They understand that these pillars are supporting the power. You saw massive civil disobedience in Serbia – people took the streets and refused to follow orders of the police. And the bureaucracy has stopped functioning, and when you see that happening the power is very weak. And sometimes the two last pillars start to crack as well. If these pillars are too weak the whole power system collapses. That is the short summary of how these revolutions are functioning. All political powers are dependent on support from below. Like a teacher at school: If they are 40 students and they decide to sing in history lesson, there will be singing. He can punish them as the state punishes you, but in the end it’s up to the masses. You can’t have power without some sort of cooperation from below. The development of non-cooperation techniques is what we see in the last three decades’ revolutions. So the old revolutionaries, these guys are outdated. And the new ones are women in the 50s and 60s confronting the police, massive demonstrations in front of the parliament. These are the new revolutionaries, and they are much more successful than him for the moment.
Factors of Investment Decision for Multinational Corporations: The case of Turkey
